Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

How many burglaries would a person need to commit to steal an equal
dollar value? Add up a one year (or more) sentence for each burglary,
and the total is much more than Keating got or Lay would have served
if alive.
Burglary sentences are not proportional to the value of what was
stolen.

Exactly! White collar criminals steal millions and get a short
sentence in a minimum security federal prison with other corporate
criminals. A kid from the hood steals a television from a store and
gets several years in a medium security state prison with career
street thugs.

If a burglar steals $1000 in property versus $2000 in property on
one heist, the sentence is not going to be twice as long, all else
being equal.

Oh, BTW, Charles Keating got a 10 year sentence in 1992, followed by a
12.5 year sentence in 1993, and was released after 4.5 years. His
sentences were eventually overturned. That's not counting the civil
cases, nor a subsequent conviction for bankruptcy fraud, where he was
sentence to time already served.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating


Let the punishment fit the race and class, not the crime!

Idiot.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Well, Zaumen quote the laws as if they govern real world events.
Tell that one to the judge the next time you get a moving violation.

Tell that to the bus driver when you are crushed beneath the bus's wheels.
Tell that to the gang banger who is driving without a license in a
stolen car while carrying an unregistered gun, and who not too worried
about another trip to the "big house" (very common in the 'hood).
Sherman, you are an idiot.

Zaumen, you are living in a fantasy world.

No, you are an idiot.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:
[i]
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.
You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.

Knowing the law enough to answer multiple choice questions on a test
and understanding and retaining the information are two different
things (in the real world).
There's a driving part of the test too.
Not many drive in the real world the same way they would while taking
the test.
You don't think you are in the "real world" while taking a driving
test?
If you mean that they behave better, that's true when they see a police
car as well. The bottom line is that they know what the laws are, but
may choose to ignore them when they think they can get away with it.

Leave out "they know what the laws are" and Zaumen has it right.

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?
It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.

Citation?
Idiot.

Citation?
Your comments above will do.

Peer reviewed citation?

You are an idiot.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Eric Vey writes:

Tom Sherman wrote:

Tell that to the gang banger who is driving without a license in a
stolen car while carrying an unregistered gun, and who not too
worried about another trip to the "big house" (very common in the
'hood).

We get something like that almost every day now with a crash.
Here is today's freak show:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1854629.story

Nothing in that article about "driving without a license" and nothing
about a gun. The only mention of a stolen car was that the police
were looking for a white Taurus and spotted the guy driving the
same model (but he was not driving a stolen vehicle).
He panicked and got himself in worse trouble.

So, you couldn't find a good example, apparently.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

How many burglaries would a person need to commit to steal an equal
dollar value? Add up a one year (or more) sentence for each burglary,
and the total is much more than Keating got or Lay would have served
if alive.
Burglary sentences are not proportional to the value of what was
stolen.

Exactly! White collar criminals steal millions and get a short
sentence in a minimum security federal prison with other corporate
criminals. A kid from the hood steals a television from a store and
gets several years in a medium security state prison with career
street thugs.

If a burglar steals $1000 in property versus $2000 in property on
one heist, the sentence is not going to be twice as long, all else
being equal.

Oh, BTW, Charles Keating got a 10 year sentence in 1992, followed by a
12.5 year sentence in 1993, and was released after 4.5 years. His
sentences were eventually overturned. That's not counting the civil
cases, nor a subsequent conviction for bankruptcy fraud, where he was
sentence to time already served.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

Yes, and if someone committed enough store robberies to steel as much as
Keating, and was caught and convicted for all of them, the combined
sentences would be much greater that what Keating received. Duh!

Let the punishment fit the race and class, not the crime!

Idiot.

Sarcasm detector broken?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Well, Zaumen quote the laws as if they govern real world events.
Tell that one to the judge the next time you get a moving violation.

Tell that to the bus driver when you are crushed beneath the bus's wheels.
Tell that to the gang banger who is driving without a license in a
stolen car while carrying an unregistered gun, and who not too worried
about another trip to the "big house" (very common in the 'hood).
Sherman, you are an idiot.

Zaumen, you are living in a fantasy world.

No, you are an idiot.

Peer reviewed citation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:[i]
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.
You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.

Knowing the law enough to answer multiple choice questions on a test
and understanding and retaining the information are two different
things (in the real world).
There's a driving part of the test too.
Not many drive in the real world the same way they would while taking
the test.
You don't think you are in the "real world" while taking a driving
test?
If you mean that they behave better, that's true when they see a police
car as well. The bottom line is that they know what the laws are, but
may choose to ignore them when they think they can get away with it.

Leave out "they know what the laws are" and Zaumen has it right.

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?
It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.

Citation?
Idiot.

Citation?
Your comments above will do.

Peer reviewed citation?

You are an idiot.

Zaumen must have a keyboard macro for "You are an idiot".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


If a burglar steals $1000 in property versus $2000 in property on
one heist, the sentence is not going to be twice as long, all else
being equal.
Oh, BTW, Charles Keating got a 10 year sentence in 1992, followed by
a
12.5 year sentence in 1993, and was released after 4.5 years. His
sentences were eventually overturned. That's not counting the civil
cases, nor a subsequent conviction for bankruptcy fraud, where he was
sentence to time already served.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

Yes, and if someone committed enough store robberies to steel as much
as Keating, and was caught and convicted for all of them, the combined
sentences would be much greater that what Keating received. Duh!

You obviously missed the point, and your "Duh" just shows your stupidity.

Let the punishment fit the race and class, not the crime!
Idiot.

Sarcasm detector broken?

No, stupid-comment detector working.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Well, Zaumen quote the laws as if they govern real world events.
Tell that one to the judge the next time you get a moving violation.

Tell that to the bus driver when you are crushed beneath the bus's wheels.
Tell that to the gang banger who is driving without a license in a
stolen car while carrying an unregistered gun, and who not too worried
about another trip to the "big house" (very common in the 'hood).
Sherman, you are an idiot.

Zaumen, you are living in a fantasy world.
No, you are an idiot.

Peer reviewed citation?

Idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:
[i]
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.
You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.

Knowing the law enough to answer multiple choice questions on a test
and understanding and retaining the information are two different
things (in the real world).
There's a driving part of the test too.
Not many drive in the real world the same way they would while taking
the test.
You don't think you are in the "real world" while taking a driving
test?
If you mean that they behave better, that's true when they see a police
car as well. The bottom line is that they know what the laws are, but
may choose to ignore them when they think they can get away with it.

Leave out "they know what the laws are" and Zaumen has it right.

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?
It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.

Citation?
Idiot.

Citation?
Your comments above will do.

Peer reviewed citation?
You are an idiot.

Zaumen must have a keyboard macro for "You are an idiot".

Idiot.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB